[yolesaber]

His behavior as the editor of Breitbart doesn't count? Why not? Former editors and writers for the outlet have commented at length at how he essentially turned it into an alt-right clearinghouse. Bannon himself has said that it is the platform for the alt-right. Are you going to now argue that the alt-right movement is not racist or motivated by racial concerns? How about all the stormfronters and ethno-nationalists who are cheering his appointment?

[ta_donk_gt]

Sure, his Breitbart days count, I was just saying that what you typically hear is "Breitbart is racist" without any actual justification, so I was looking for actual examples that show the clear racism as opposed to just saying "Breitbart".

As for bad people supporting someone, bad people support everyone, so that's not really an argument. People, good or bad (or like most of us, good and bad) want to feel that their concerns are heard. I think most of the people championing Bannon are concerned about their standard of living being reduced over the last 30 years, and feeling that trade and immigration policies have been the largest contributors to that decline. They feel Bannon gives them a voice. I have no doubt that plenty of bad people may also feel that Bannon speaks for them, but that doesn't mean he actually is.

[yolesaber]

> I think most of the people championing Bannon are concerned about their standard of living being reduced over the last 30 years, and feeling that trade and immigration policies have been the largest contributors to that decline.

Sure and those are valid concerns. However they are oftentimes framed through a racial lens which Breitbart plays to all the time. To wit, Breitbart continously pushes the "black on black" violence talking point whenever police shootings, police reform, or hell anything related to black people. Like, just look at this article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devasta... - does it ever go into the context of these shootings or try to assess them critically? No, it just parrots statistics and then labels Black Lives Matter protesters as "blood-lusting junkies"

Breitbart also continuously uses "racial statistics" and relies on the work of cranks http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/alt-right-r...

>Bannon didn’t just make Breitbart a safe space for white supremacists; he’s also welcomed a scholar blacklisted from the mainstream conservative movement for arguing there’s a connection between race and IQ. Breitbart frequently highlights the work of Jason Richwine, who resigned from the conservative Heritage Foundation when news broke that his Harvard dissertation argued in part that Hispanics have lower IQs than non-Hispanic whites.

>As for bad people supporting someone, bad people support everyone, so that's not really an argument

When high profile American nazis say that this is a good decision and will push Trump in the right direction, I tend to get worried. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-ameri...

[ta_donk_gt]

I agree, those articles are all one sided. To me, that material comes off as the same way that groups like the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam / Farrakhan target their audiences but at the opposite end of the spectrum. Both are using one-sided rhetoric to advance their case and incite their audience. I think that there is a nuance there, and while Farrakhan and the Black Panthers and their supporters may at times have a lot of animosity, anger, distrust, etc., labelling those groups as racist and something to be ignored is not really fair. I think you have to treat the same feelings on the other side of the spectrum the same way, though, as it is really the same emotions being drawn out.

I see your point, though, in that it would be sort of like having Farrakhan's press secretary or speech writer being appointed as chief strategist for Obama. The right would go apeshit.